Full Text . - Scribner, Hall & Thompson, LLP

T3:TAXING TIMES TIDBITS | FROM PAGE 23
not have any control over Insurance Fund’s investments. The investment decisions of Insurance Fund
are made by Insurance Fund’s Adviser and Subadviser
in their sole and absolute discretion and are subject to
change without notice to or approval by the Variable
Contract holders. The Variable Contract holders in
this case do not have any more control over the assets
held under their contract than was the case in Rev. Rul.
82-54 or Rev. Rul. 2003-91. Insurance Fund is not an
indirect means of allowing a Variable Contract holder
to invest in a publically-available fund.
Based on the foregoing, the ruling concludes that the formation and operation of the Insurance Fund, and its establishment as a separate series within the same Trust as Retail Fund,
would not cause the policyholders to be treated as the owners
of the Insurance Fund shares for federal income tax purposes.
Concluding observations. PLR 201436005 is the latest in a
series of private letter rulings evidencing a trend towards IRS
acceptance of common industry practices regarding the use of
so-called clone funds in support of variable insurance products.
The ruling is very similar to PLR 201417007 (Dec. 19, 2013).
The potential investor control question in the context of an insurance-dedicated fund that has a publicly-available clone (or
vice versa) is whether the similar (or perhaps identical) holdings of the two funds will cause the insurance-dedicated fund to
be treated as publicly available. Although the legislative history
of section 817(h) suggests that the answer should be no,5 the
question has persisted, in part due to the uncertainty involved
in applying the investor control doctrine (the fog noted above)
and in part because of the disconnect between that doctrine and
section 817(h). Perhaps significantly, as the basis for its conclusion, the ruling defaults to the perceived result of the IRS’s prior
rulings—“The Variable Contract holders in this case do not
have any more control over the assets held under their contract
than was the case in Rev. Rul. 82-54 or Rev. Rul. 2003-91”—
and then makes a substance-over form point: “Insurance Fund
is not an indirect means of allowing a Variable Contract holder
to invest in a publically-available fund.” Clearly, the IRS has
not backed away from its fundamental ruling position on the
investor control doctrine.
This latest ruling does suggest a growing acceptance by the
IRS that no investor control problem will arise in clone fund
situations involving retail products, as long as there is at least
some possibility that differences will exist between the insurance-dedicated fund and the publicly available retail fund.
Those differences may even be relatively minor, and perhaps
24 | TAXING TIMES FEBRUARY 2015
may never materialize at all. While this may be a sign that the
fog is lifting a little, it is important to remember that the ruling
concerns retail mutual funds, that differences between the
insurance-related fund and the public fund could emerge despite their common objectives and fees and management, and
that the application of the investor control doctrine “depends
on all the relevant facts and circumstances.”
END NOTES
1
See Rev. Rul. 2003-92, 2003-2 C.B. 350; Rev. Rul. 2003-91,
2003-2 C.B. 347; Rev. Proc. 99-44, 1999-2 C.B. 598; Rev. Rul.
82-55, 1982-1 C.B. 12; Rev. Rul. 82-54, 1982-1 C.B. 11; Rev.
Rul. 81-225, 1981-2 C.B. 13; Rev. Rul. 80-274, 1980-2 C.B.
27; Rev. Rul. 77-85, 1977-1 C.B. 12; see also Christoffersen
v. United States, 749 F.2d 513 (8th Cir. 1984), cert. denied,
473 U.S. 905 (1985).
2
IRC section 817(h) authorizes regulations requiring “adequate” diversification of variable contract separate account
investments. The regulations issued under that provision,
found in Treas. Reg. § 1.817-5, effectively preclude basing
a variable contract on a single, publicly available mutual
fund. The ruling mentioned is Rev. Rul. 81-225, cited in note
1 supra.
3
See Rev. Rul. 2003-91, supra note 1.
4
Treas. Reg. § 1.817-5(f)(3).
5
See H.R. Rep. No. 98-861, at 1055 (1984) (Conf. Rep.) (“The
fact that a similar fund is available to the public will not
cause the segregated asset fund to be treated as being
publicly available.”).
SUBCHAPTER L: CAN YOU BELIEVE IT?
STATUTORY RESERVES DO NOT ALWAYS
HAVE TO BE SET FORTH IN THE ANNUAL
STATEMENT
By Peter H. Winslow
D
eductible federally prescribed reserves are capped by
statutory reserves. To qualify as statutory reserves
for this purpose, I.R.C. § 807(d)(6) provides that the
reserves must be “set forth” in the annual statement. Is there
ever an instance where tax reserves should not be capped even
though they exceed statutory reserves that are reported in the
annual statement? Yes, when statutory reserves are weakened.
A simple example illustrates how reserve weakening results
in this tax reserve anomaly. Suppose a life insurer issues
contracts that include a disability waiver-of-premium benefit
for an additional charge. Tax reserves for this type of benefit
are equal to the reserves taken into account on the annual
statement because they are held for qualified supplemental
benefits under I.R.C. § 807(e)(3). Now suppose the company changes its basis of computing its statutory reserves for
this benefit and the result is lower statutory (and therefore
tax) reserves. In such case I.R.C. § 807(f) comes into play.
I.R.C. § 807(f) defers until the succeeding taxable year the
tax recognition of the decreased reserves resulting from the
reserve weakening for contracts issued before the taxable
year. For those contracts, tax reserves are computed on the old
method for the year of change, and reserves computed on the
new method are used for the years thereafter. The difference
between the closing reserves computed on the old basis and
the closing reserves computed on the new basis for the year of
change is spread over ten years beginning in the year following the year the change in basis of computing reserves occurs.
Going back to the qualified supplemental benefits example,
the effect of I.R.C. § 807(f) is that the year-of-change tax
reserves are computed for previously-issued contracts as if
no change in statutory reserves occurred. But wait. Should we
cap tax reserves for the year of change by the lower amount
of statutory reserves actually “set forth” for that year in the
annual statement? The answer is “no.”
The technical statutory language under current law that leads
to this result is found in I.R.C. § 807(f) itself. The requirement
to compute reserves using the “old basis” for the year of
change refers to the entire reserve “item” described in I.R.C.
§ 807(c), which by its terms includes application of the statutory reserves cap.
I.R.C. § 807(f) is carried over almost word-for-word (with
minor conforming amendments) from former I.R.C. § 810(d)
in effect before the Tax Reform Act of 1984. Also, in general,
except where an election was made with respect to preliminary
term reserves, tax reserves under pre-1984 Act law were equal
to reserves set forth in the annual statement.1 Therefore, the
concepts of both statutory reserves and of reserve strengthening
or weakening of statutory (and tax) reserves under current law
are generally the same as under pre-1984 Act law. The legislative history of the 1984 Act states that “where provisions of
prior law are incorporated in the [1984] Act, the Congress expects that, in the absence of contrary guidance in the committee
reports and conference agreement, the regulations, rulings, and
case law under prior law will serve as interpretative guides to
the new provisions.”2 This legislative history confirms that we
should look for guidance as to how reserve weakening works
under current law by examining how former I.R.C. § 810(d)
operated when statutory (and tax) reserves were weakened.
There is no doubt that under former I.R.C. § 810(d) deductible tax reserves for contracts issued in prior years were not
reduced by the reserve weakening in the year of change.3 This
was so even though life insurance reserves were required
to be “set aside” and “required by law” under former I.R.C.
§ 801(b), as well as required to be “held” under Treas. Reg.
§ 1.801-4(d). The same result should apply to reserve weakening under current law where statutory reserves similarly
are required to be “set forth.” That is, the statutory reserve
cap should not come into play to limit tax reserves required
to be computed on the old basis in the year of change. Thus,
as under prior law, the reserve weakening rules of I.R.C.
§ 807(f) should trump the “set forth” requirement for statutory
reserves in I.R.C. § 807(d)(6).
Peter H. Winslow
is a partner with
the Washington,
D.C. law firm of
Scribner, Hall
& Thompson,
LLP and may
be reached
at pwinslow@
scribnerhall.com.
The same analysis also should apply in the more complicated
scenario when federally prescribed reserves computed under
I.R.C. § 807(d) and statutory reserves are both weakened. Just
as in the case of statutory reserves for qualified supplemental
benefits subject to the statutory reserves cap, the requirement
of I.R.C. § 807(f) to remain on the old tax reserve method for
the year of change should override the “set forth” requirement
in the definition of statutory reserves in I.R.C. § 807(d)(6).
So, in the case of reserve weakening, statutory reserves need
not be “set forth” statutory reserves in the year of change. Can
you believe it?
END NOTES
1
Former I.R.C. § 810; Commissioner v. Standard Life &
Accident Ins. Co., 433 U.S. 148 (1977).
2
Jt. Comm. on Tax’n, General Explanation of the Revenue
Provisions of the Deficit Reduction Act of 1984, 581
(Comm. Print 1984).
3
See examples in Treas. Reg. § 1.810-3(b) which provide
that reserves at the end of the year of change for contracts
issued before the year of change are determined on the
“old” basis.
FEBRUARY 2015 TAXING TIMES | 25